Screening of cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease: diagnostic validity of the Brazilian versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to examine the accuracy of the Brazilian versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) to screen for mild cognitive impairment (PDMCI) and dementia (PDD) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHOD: Both scales were administered to a final convenience sample of 79 patients with PD. Patients were evaluated by a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a neuropsychologist using UPDRS, Hoehn and Yahr and Schwab and England scales, global deterioration scale, a psychiatric structured interview, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale and other cognitive tests. RESULTS: There were 32 patients with PDMCI and 17 patients with PDD. The MoCA and the ACE-R were able to discriminate patients with PDD from the others. CONCLUSION: Both scales showed to be useful to screen for dementia but not for mild cognitive impairment in patients with PD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".